Space X launch

louis · 2017-06-03 12:36:23

Just came across this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luJEVZA2rZc

SpaceNut · 2017-06-03 13:29:17

yes a reused Dragon Capsule

louis · 2017-06-03 15:17:08

Love those stage one landings! Perfect landing again!! Musk is changing the face of the rocket industry.

RobertDyck · 2017-06-03 15:50:07

Land-on-tail was pioneered by Delta Clipper Experimental aka DC-X. However, SpaceX is making it happen.

The Russians reused some Soyuz capsules, aka Descent Module. That's the only part that returned to Earth. Other modules burned up in the atmosphere and debris crashed in an ocean.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-06-03 15:53:46)

louis · 2017-06-03 16:23:24

Blue Origin beat Space X to a commercial return landing but it's easier from sub-space with a squat little rocket.

RobertDyck wrote:

Land-on-tail was pioneered by Delta Clipper Experimental aka DC-X. However, SpaceX is making it happen.
The Russians reused some Soyuz capsules, aka Descent Module. That's the only part that returned to Earth. Other modules burned up in the atmosphere and debris crashed in an ocean.

SpaceNut · 2017-06-03 16:54:02

Then again Space X is also at some point going to want a second stage recovery as well to aid in lowering the cost to orbit but with that said we still have not seen the numbers for how expensive the refurbishment is for each reuse?

We know that each stage is retested on a stand but that is about all.

louis · 2017-06-03 17:33:54

I'd guess it's probably 10% of the cost of replacing it. Presumably there is a cost in having the fuel/propellant on board to achieve retro landing.

SpaceNut wrote:

Then again Space X is also at some point going to want a second stage recovery as well to aid in lowering the cost to orbit but with that said we still have not seen the numbers for how expensive the refurbishment is for each reuse?
We know that each stage is retested on a stand but that is about all.

RobertDyck · 2017-06-03 17:50:28

Don't guess. Recovering, refurbishing and refuelling a Shuttle SRB cost 90% the price of a new one. I suspect SpaceX is doing a lot better, but SpaceNut raises a valid point. Numbers matter.

louis · 2017-06-03 18:05:57

You had all that nonsense with tiles though didn't you - one of the chief reasons the Shuttle failed as a launch system.

RobertDyck wrote:

Don't guess. Recovering, refurbishing and refuelling a Shuttle SRB cost 90% the price of a new one. I suspect SpaceX is doing a lot better, but SpaceNut raises a valid point. Numbers matter.

Terraformer · 2017-06-04 08:39:39

As well as the fact that they were solids, so refuelling meant rebuilding the entire rocket...

GW Johnson · 2017-06-04 15:33:26

The cost of the shuttle SRB's was threefold: recovery (a fleet of ships is expensive), refurbishment (aggravated by repairs instead of just cleanup and reload), and damage due to ocean impacts (inherent with chute landings at sea). The shuttle program would have avoided some of this by just flying the SRB's as expendables.

NASA lost a lot of case segments because they got dented or bent beyond feasible repair by the ocean impact forces. That idiotically-complicated joint design made repair feasibility very low. That idiotic design was forced upon Thiokol (who knew better) by NASA (who demonstrably did not know any better, but arrogantly and unjustifiably thought it did.)

A lot of this is just inherent with large sizes. The square-cube scaling laws are a real effect. At small sizes, there is far less damage potential for any sort of handling or abuse. I have cleaned up and reused a lot of small solid motor hardware, and it was just not expensive to do so. A lot of the distaste I see for solids on these forums is unjustified. But you need somebody competent in the technology to actually manage it correctly. And with solids, that was not (and still is not) NASA.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-06-04 15:35:36)

SpaceNut · 2017-06-04 15:56:25

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Just a quick note re: space vehicle reusability; SpaceX yesterday, flew a "recycled" Dragon capsule loaded with 2,200 kg of science experiments on a mission to the ISS.
Here's the youtube SpaceX video of the launch and first stage flyback and recovery. : https://youtu.be/JuZBOUMsYws

SpaceNut · 2017-06-08 19:34:22

Could NASA and SpaceX cooperation turn into competition?

While I doubt this would happen the thought of it makes for a USA space Race, now all we need is the rest of the launch providers to step up to the plate as well....

NASA has promoted plans to send humans into deep space. But its "Space Launch System" won't be ready to bring humans around the moon until at least 2021.

Surprise to NASA was when SpaceX founder Elon Musk held a conference call in February, announcing plans to use a powerful rocket that hasn't yet flown to sling private tourists around the moon next year.

louis · 2017-06-09 05:44:12

What a load of hogwash.

Mary Lynne Dittmar is hardly a disinterested party. It's clear the rocket dinosaurs are trying to bring down Space X using safety as their disingenuous method.

Space X must press on regardless. NASA can't take away contracts fairly won.

It's clear NASA should abandon the SLS and reorientate the contractors involved to work on lunar and Mars settlement.

SpaceNut wrote:

Could NASA and SpaceX cooperation turn into competition?
While I doubt this would happen the thought of it makes for a USA space Race, now all we need is the rest of the launch providers to step up to the plate as well....
NASA has promoted plans to send humans into deep space. But its "Space Launch System" won't be ready to bring humans around the moon until at least 2021.
Surprise to NASA was when SpaceX founder Elon Musk held a conference call in February, announcing plans to use a powerful rocket that hasn't yet flown to sling private tourists around the moon next year.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-09 07:27:51

SpaceX seems to be winning whatever competition is out there; they were just awarded another Air Force mission of launching the X-37B space plane. http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organ … -launcher/

In an online discussion yesterday, Elon Musk gave a hint as to the first flight of Falcon Heavy: "As early as September this year." http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organ … september/

As far as a competition between SpaceX and NASA, it will be a "no contest" with SpaceX as the winner. Government cannot cost-to-benefit compete with the more efficient private sector.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-06-09 07:35:42)

SpaceNut · 2017-06-09 17:41:44

The drama thou is that government is being taken on by a private citizen which never ends well for them unless they are Rich.
Then again Space x is no nasa for doing the not for a profit science, R&D ect that would leave us all wanting if the government does not support the governments own agency as without it we would have huge job losses, almost no space industry would be left for anything other than a military contract to launch and a few commercial satelites for tv, or phone....

GW Johnson · 2017-06-23 15:57:21

Just saw on the internet that Spacex successfully sent a satellite into a geosynch transfer orbit for the Bulgarians today. The booster was one flown once before, and was barely (!) successfully landed on the drone ship a second time. This was from Canaveral.

Scheduled is another satellite launch from Vandenburg this Sunday. Booster landing will be attempted. Different drone ship.

Latest rumor from "the voice of rumor control" is that the first Falcon Heavy launch is scheduled in August. Maybe.

Kudos once again to Spacex.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-06-23 15:59:10)

louis · 2017-06-23 17:12:20

Some detail:

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/06/23/b … us-center/

GW Johnson wrote:

Just saw on the internet that Spacex successfully sent a satellite into a geosynch transfer orbit for the Bulgarians today. The booster was one flown once before, and was barely (!) successfully landed on the drone ship a second time. This was from Canaveral.
Scheduled is another satellite launch from Vandenburg this Sunday. Booster landing will be attempted. Different drone ship.
Latest rumor from "the voice of rumor control" is that the first Falcon Heavy launch is scheduled in August. Maybe.
Kudos once again to Spacex.
GW

SpaceNut · 2017-06-23 17:53:33

The Static fire test brings Falcon Heavy one step closer to debut to which GW could hear...but has there been any others?

SpaceX has test-fired one of the reused boosters in McGregor, Texas, after refurbishment following a launch in May 2016 with a Thaicom communications satellite. Once hotfire testing of the core stage is complete, workers will raise another previously-flown side booster for a static firing.

To which the center core needs the most modifications to make it function due to load bearing from the others connected to it. Like the Falcon 9, the Falcon Heavy will fly with a single-engine second stage and stand nearly 230 feet (70 meters) tall.

The 3rd Quarter Falcon Heavy • Demo Flight is placed between sept 12 - 21 which could slide back even further with the next 3rd Quarter Falcon Heavy • STP-2 set in 2019.

They may also go for upper-stage recovery as well.

Next up in Nov is hopefully the Crew Dragon Demo 1, ...keeping fingers crossed

GW Johnson · 2017-06-25 15:41:55

Good news once again, for the second time in only 3 days. Successful Falcon-9 launch from Vandenburg, successful 1st stage landing on the drone ship. Second stage 8 or 9 minute burn into parking orbit successful. 4-second 2nd stage burn for final orbit successful. 15 minute satellite deployment sequence (10 Iridium-2 satellites) successful.

Spacenut: I can’t tell a Falcon-Heavy core from a Falcon-9 1st stage by the sound. Both are 9 Merlins firing, it’s the same.

Here’s a thought based on the terminology “entry burn” that they use as the stage hits denser air with the grid fins deployed. I am hazarding the guess that three engines’ retro-thrust plumes are pushing the bow shock further away, and somehow or another reducing the entry heating so that a heat shield is not required to protect all the aluminum. If true, that may be the effect they’d like to use to return second stages.

Once again, kudos to Spacex. Good job, well done! Looking forward to crew Dragon and Falcon-Heavy debuts.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-26 08:36:21

SpaceX has a launch cadence that is unrivaled at this point! The rumor mill has it that the first Falcon Heavy will be flown with 2 previously flown Falcon 9 "full thrust" rockets as boosters, but with a specially constructed central core. This will certainly lower the financial exposure of the NewSpace company, should the launch not proceed well. If they are able to recover the central core stage, and even lose the boosters, it will be a fantastic success. A trifecta of 3 stages recovered would be awesome, since the central module will require a drone ship landing. It would be nice to recover a $93 Million system!

kbd512 · 2017-06-26 12:10:51

There are now 3 "flight-proven" boosters that have been reused. I think it's safe to say that this is now the way of the future. Elon Musk has hinted that he wants turn-around to be so fast that there isn't time to repaint rockets. It's improbable that refurbishment will be any substantial percentage of the cost of the rocket if SpaceX can return a booster to flight status in a day.

Rockets from Blue Origin and SpaceX are likely to be the only cost-competitive options for NASA to select for future missions. The new Vulcan rocket from ULA recovers the propulsion module, as part of a similar but divergent approach. As a function of time-to-launch from initial order to payload availability, this may or may not be sufficient. If Vulcan uses robotically manufactured composite tanks that can be constructed in about a week with minimal human supervision during the manufacturing process, then perhaps this will be cost-competitive. Time will tell.

It's a very exciting time for space travel. By forcing innovation to reduce costs within the launch services industry, SpaceX may solve this launch cost problem and make Mars missions far more affordable than SLS ever could.

Between Blue Origin, SpaceX, StratoLaunch, ULA, and a handful of additional startups, we should have assured access to space at far more reasonable prices than most would have imagined. Competition was clearly key to fostering innovation in this particular case. In any event, the writing is on the wall. Either provide launch services at affordable prices, or perish in the wake of fierce competition.

These new commercial space access programs have to be some of the best money NASA and private investors ever spent. Good riddance to obscene launch services costs. If only SLS and Orion could be killed to fund a true super heavy lift launch vehicle like ITS, we probably could put humans on Mars within ten years. Let's hope.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-28 09:10:58

I just checked the published manifest for SpaceX over on Spaceflightinsider.com, and it appears they have 3 launches scheduled for July. I'm eagerly anticipating the Falcon Heavy demonstration test flight scheduled late August/early September.

Thinking this through, the real probable delay for SpaceX is launch pad availability; until LC-40 is back in operation, the Falcon Heavy may just be delayed until then. Given the contracted launches they have scheduled, cannot risk another on-pad accident/launch failure on 39-a.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-06-28 09:21:21)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-06-28 09:15:16

kbd512-

I have no idea when Blue Origin will be ready to test fly their New Glenn rocket; the development motor had some sort of fubar mishap recently, didn't it? That said, I like the size of the New Glenn; it really fits my requirements in my posted Mars mission architecture.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-06-28 09:22:08)

kbd512 · 2017-06-29 15:10:00

Oldfart1939,

Blue Origin accidentally exploded a BE-4 power pack on a test stand. As their press briefing stated, these things happen in testing. That'd be why we test rocket engines on test stands. I'm pretty sure we've FUBAR'd every rocket engine ever developed at least once, if only to see what would happen when we did it.

I learned about stability as a kid after I had a close encounter with one of my rockets. My first thought as the rocket was coming towards my mother and I was that the launch lugs ripped off, but upon inspection that wasn't the problem. My mother asked me what went wrong, but I had no idea at the time. I actually thought she would've known, given what she did for a living. We both had a good laugh after we realized that nobody was injured, but it forced me to think about the cause of the stability loss. I never made that mistake again, but only because I received a book after that accident that explained something that my simple rocket lasso test could not.

I'm quite certain that the BE-4 power pack loss was one of those "teachable moments" for Blue Origin's engineers.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-06-03 12:36:23

Space X launch

#2 2017-06-03 13:29:17

Re: Space X launch

#3 2017-06-03 15:17:08

Re: Space X launch

#4 2017-06-03 15:50:07

Re: Space X launch

#5 2017-06-03 16:23:24

Re: Space X launch

#6 2017-06-03 16:54:02

Re: Space X launch

#7 2017-06-03 17:33:54

Re: Space X launch

#8 2017-06-03 17:50:28

Re: Space X launch

#9 2017-06-03 18:05:57

Re: Space X launch

#10 2017-06-04 08:39:39

Re: Space X launch

#11 2017-06-04 15:33:26

Re: Space X launch

#12 2017-06-04 15:56:25

Re: Space X launch

#13 2017-06-08 19:34:22

Re: Space X launch

#14 2017-06-09 05:44:12

Re: Space X launch

#15 2017-06-09 07:27:51

Re: Space X launch

#16 2017-06-09 17:41:44

Re: Space X launch

#17 2017-06-23 15:57:21

Re: Space X launch

#18 2017-06-23 17:12:20

Re: Space X launch

#19 2017-06-23 17:53:33

Re: Space X launch

#20 2017-06-25 15:41:55

Re: Space X launch

#21 2017-06-26 08:36:21

Re: Space X launch

#22 2017-06-26 12:10:51

Re: Space X launch

#23 2017-06-28 09:10:58

Re: Space X launch

#24 2017-06-28 09:15:16

Re: Space X launch

#25 2017-06-29 15:10:00

Re: Space X launch

Board footer